Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Leftism » Anti fun brigade » Who are the real bigots in the St Pat’s spat? or the proper way to nurture social acceptance

Who are the real bigots in the St Pat’s spat? or the proper way to nurture social acceptance

As its a fine Saturday morning and I think that such days are perfect for a change of pace I offer a new topic that I have come across from my subscription to “Spiked”. It concerns the refusal of the St Patrick’s day marches in New York and Boston to allow Gay activists to march under Gay themed banners in their parades. Of course our friends of the pink persuasion are screaming “discrimination” with a great deal of vim and vigour so loudly that you would think that the march organisers were planning to burn a few homosexuals at the stake as part of the celebrations. What I find most worrying about the whole thing is the same “if you don’t support the Gay agenda 110% then you are a bigot” mindset from those homosexual activists who want to hijack the ostensibly Catholic festival to promote their own cause .


irish_gay_protestThere have also been reports of people losing employment after it was discovered that they do not agree with gay marriage. A common theme in these reports is that the individuals involved do not appear to dislike gay people, but they have nonetheless been labelled bigots due to their objections to same-sex marriage. Rather than encouraging a live-and-let-live attitude, it appears that some supporters of same-sex marriage seek to find and root out anyone who won’t publicly accept this relatively new institution.

When lawmakers in Arizona introduced a bill last month that sought to clarify whether small business owners like wedding photographers can refuse work on religious freedom grounds, there was little consideration in the media of the legal pros and cons. Few highlighted that the existing law allows private vendors to refuse work on the grounds of sexual orientation, and thus continues after the governor vetoed the bill. Instead, the proposed law was greeted with a hysterical campaign to label it ‘anti-gay’ and ‘Jim Crow’ (an historically illiterate comparison, beginning with the fact that Jim Crow was enforced by state law and businesses that refused to obey it could be prosecuted).

These tendencies to demonise dissent are visible in the campaign against the St Patrick Day parades. There is a rush to label any disagreement with gay marriage or gay culture as out-and-out ‘bigotry’. There is a desire to not simply state that certain views of gays are wrong, but to have those views silenced. And there is an operation to target and scare corporations that are associated with such views. Gay activists threatened a campaign against corporations in Arizona, including the National Football League for holding the Super Bowl in the state, if the recent bill passed. Similarly, they pressured St Patrick’s Day sponsors like Samuel Adams and Heineken to withdraw support. This is the top-down, elite-led politics of name and shame, rather than a properly liberal campaign that draw upon popular support.

What we are witnessing is an attack on those who don’t share today’s pro-gay outlook. Some may want to opt out of this Culture War, but the war increasingly won’t allow there to be any bystanders. Instead, there is pressure to conform. Even if it does not spill over into the political or legal world, such conformism is problematic for the free flow of ideas.

The sky will not fall if gays and lesbians are allowed to march in the Boston and New York St Patrick’s Day parades. But we will create a conformist, intolerant and unfree society if we do not allow space for the expression of different views, including traditional religious teachings about homosexuality and same-sex marriage.


The title of the article asks Who are the real bigots in the St Pat’s spat? and I can’t avoid concluding that its the very noisy Gay activists who are using every possible way to bully people into “endorsing” to their position. I can’t help thinking that this may well back fire on them and lead to a backlash that seriously damages the hard earned public good will towards homosexuality that has been steadily been accruing over the last few years. Social acceptance can be most fragile flower that needs nurture and careful cultivation and it can be oh so easily lost if you start tearing up the field with loud and noisy tractors instead of well directed hand tools.

Cheers Comrades



  1. Jeff G. says:

    Well the purpose of the St Pats day march is to celebrate St Pats day, I would have thought. So perhaps it is a case not of “gays being banned” but of “people with banners promoting gay issues being banned”. Which is a different kettle of fish for mine. They would probably ban any political lobby group who wanted to participate to promote their cause, because that’s not what St Pat’s day is about.

    Not much opinion about this really, it’s their march and surely they can do as they please. The gay activists can have their own march and do likewise.

  2. Iain Hall says:

    I tend to feel pretty much like that too Jeff

  3. GD says:

    Jeff, I agree, a parade shouldn’t have to accept any activist or lobbyist banners for other issues. I’m sure the Gay Mardi Gras in Sydney would stomp on any banners that didn’t support their cause.

    There have also been reports of people losing employment after it was discovered that they do not agree with gay marriage.

    What about this loon..

    When I called for quotes for lawn mowing, I questioned applicants on their view on AGW Climate change, the deniers were shown the door.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    What a wanker he is GD!

  5. GD says:

    Great ‘tweet’ Iain and such quick work on your part.

    He could employ a sheep, or be a true greenie and cut his lawn with a scythe. Or be even a better greenie and not kill the grass at all; grass eats that evil CO2 that he’s so scared of.

    I hope you keep us posted as to any replies from him.

  6. Ray Dixon says:

    It just shows you that you meet the dumbest people on Twitter.

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Yep GD I will do that.
    Ray that would make a great T shirt!

  8. GD says:

    that would make a great T shirt

    It’s certainly a better idea than the disgraceful ‘F*ck Tony Abbot’ T shirts that Fairfax columnist Clementine Ford is selling.

    Funny how leftists aren’t wailing about this, when they shrieked at any criticism of Gillard.

  9. Ray Dixon says:

    It’s bad taste but what are you suggesting, GD, that they be banned? There’s been plenty of offensive stuff put up about Gillard & Rudd too. Some of it by you.

  10. Ray Dixon says:

    (Great the way you’ve turned this blog into a Twitter account, btw. As I said, you meet the dumbest people on Twitter!!! No offence intended)

  11. Ray Dixon says:

    Off topic but quick, have a look at Insiders on the ABC. One of the reporters they’ve got on the couch is a woman from Adelaide (not sure of her name) and she’s wearing a great big studded dog collar!! She looks like a Dominatrix. What a thing to wear on national TV.

  12. GD says:

    Watching now. Where is the alternate conservative view or is all Abbott and LNP bashing by our taxpayer funded broadcaster?

    OK, great to see one conservative commentator this week. The rest are against the LNP.

    Gerald is blitzing the rest of them, especially Lenore Taylor.

    ‘There you’ve said two ifs and one supposition’.

  13. GD says:

    Lenore Taylor is a rabid leftist and a regular commentator on the Insiders, far more frequently than conservative Gerard Henderson. The studded dog collar girl is a News Ltd columnist. Clearly, even by her own admission, she is out of her depth on this panel. News Ltd employs many left-leaning writers as opposed to the number of conservative writers employed by both Fairfax and the ABC. This week, why couldn’t the Insider panel have included two conservatives as opposed to two or three leftists? Instead they brought in a neophyte lefty. Pathetic.

    The Insiders have never employed two conservatives vs one leftist and the leftist host Barrie Cassidy. His penultimate direction to Gerard Henderson was a rude cutting off. Gerard pointed out at the end of the discussion about the NDIS that neither the NDIS or the pink batts scheme under Finance Minister Penny Wong’s watch had been costed. Cassidy’s immediate and final response was ‘we’ll leave it at that’.


  14. Ray Dixon says:

    The dog-collar-wearing News Ltd journo is also a regular on the Paul Murray Live show on Fox TV. She’s a hard right journo, as are most of Murray’s panelists and is not ‘out of her depth’. So what you had were 3 invited panelists, two of whom were hard right, the other not. You’re making things up about ABC bias, GD, but what’s new?

    As for Henderson, he was straight out factually incorrect (read “lied”) when he claimed in defence of Senator Sinodinos that the company paying him $200,000 per year for 2 hours work per week (AWH) “did not get the Govt contract” so what’s the problem? He was only referring to the larger contract they were seeking and omitting the fact AWH does indeed have “a” Govt water contract and have been making dubious expense claims from Sydney Water. That’s why ICAC is having an inquiry, to look into that company’s contract. They couldn’t have an inquiry into a private company if they had no contractual links to the Govt.

  15. GD says:

    Tori Shepard is a ‘hard right journo’, bullshit, and you have got to be kidding! She admitted she was out of depth on the Insiders. Now get over to Channel 10 and watch some real political commentary.

  16. GD says:

    Clearly if you reckon they are hard right, you by definition must be hard left. If the cap fits, wear it.

    Can you quote anything Shepard said on the Insiders that was of the Right wing? Of course you can’t.

    Can you link to any column she has written ever that suggested she was a right wing columnist?

    Of course you can’t.

  17. Ray Dixon says:

    Here’s the proof that Gerard Henderson was telling porkies on National TV about AWH’s contractual position with Sydney Water (a NSW Govt entity). They do indeed have a Govt contract. And Sinodinos was indeed benefitting from it. Dubiously benefitting:

    Australian Water Holdings: what you need to know

    • Rouse Hill Infrastructure Consortium formed as a not-for-profit business in 1990. The company won the rights to build water and sewer infrastructure in Sydney’s fast-growing north-west two years later. The contract was on a “costs plus” basis, allowing it to bill Sydney Water for expenses.

    • Lawyer Nicholas Di Girolamo joins as a director in 2005 and the company transforms. It starts to massively increase the bills it submits to Sydney Water and begins paying lavish salaries.

    • Eddie Obeid jnr is hired in 2007 and the company changes its name to Australian Water Holdings in 2008. AWH refuses to open its books to Sydney Water when chief executive Kerry Schott questions AWH’s bills.

    • AWH starts to lobby for a $1 billion public private partnership to supply more infrastructure. Under Dr Schott, Sydney Water resists. AWH lobbies the NSW Labor government directly for the PPP and starts to lobby the NSW Liberal opposition.

    Advertisement • Arthur Sinodinos is appointed director of AWH in 2008.

    • AWH donates more than $43,000 to Barry O’Farrell’s election campaign in 2010 and Sinodinos is appointed chairman in November 2010.

    • The Obeid family take a $3 million stake in 2010, though Sinodinos says he had no knowledge of this.

    • Sinodinos was finance director of the NSW Liberal Party when he was employed by AWH.

    • Sinodinos lobbies O’Farrell on behalf of AWH. He stands down as AWH chairman to become Liberal senator for NSW. He relinquishes his shares in AWH when the company’s Obeid links are revealed.

    Questions Senator Sinodinos still faces

    • Does he maintain, as he told Parliament, he was unaware AWH was “financially linked” with the Obeid family, when Eddie Obeid jnr was one of just 10 employees?

    • Does he believe $200,000 for 100 hours of work was a fair rate of pay?

    • Does he still maintain he was unaware of tens of thousands of dollars in political donations from AWH to the NSW Liberal Party when he was a director of AWH and the party’s honorary treasurer?

    • Does he believe AWH’s contract with Sydney Water represented good value for the NSW taxpayer?

    • Was he aware donations to the Liberal Party from AWH were being channelled from Sydney Water? If not, what did he do as chairman of the company? Did he ever discuss with state Coalition MPs the position of former Sydney Water chief Kerry Schott or the make-up of the board?

    • What did he discuss with Barry O’Farrell and Brad Hazzard when he met them in his capacity as AWH chairman?

    Yes, Sinodinos has a LOT to answer. Got any opinion on this yet, GD, or are you still “reserving judgement”? As for Hendo, his omission of this FACT today implied AWH had NO contracts with Sydney Water at all and amounts to a lie. Well done Hendo.

  18. Ray Dixon says:

    if you reckon they are hard right, you by definition must be hard left.

    That does not make any sense. If I call you a “white bastard” does that make me a black one? I’m not going to be diverted by your demand I provide links to her writings. I’ve heard enough of her on PM Live to form the opinion she’s ‘hard right’. Not as hard right as you, GD, but then again, who is?

    Now about Hendo & Sinodinos? Any opinion at all on Sino and his AWH position?

  19. GD says:

    ICAC is having an inquiry, to look into that company’s contract

    As Abbott said, let’s wait until the inquiry is completed. Meanwhile Sinodinos has stood aside, unlike Thomson and Williamson who resisted until the last minute.

  20. GD says:

    Why are you demanding an opinion from me on this matter before it is decided by the ACAC?

  21. Ray Dixon says:

    I’m not “demanding”, I’m pointing out your hypocrisy. You were jumping in on Thomson well before any investigation by authorities had even started yet when there’s evidence already presented at ICAC that implicates Sinodinos in shady dealings your position is that you refuse to comment “until the inquiry is completed”.

    As for Thomson, he was suspended from the ALP before being charged and even before the investigations were completed. He had nothing to “stand aside” from as he wasn’t a Minister/Front bencher. He stayed in the House as an independent. Sinodinos is still in the party and still in the Senate. They’re similar in that regard and once again you are diverting and obfuscating.

  22. Ray Dixon says:

    Your silence on Sino is very telling of your one-sided views, GD. I (and others here, you included) had no hesitation (and every right) to comment on what was known about Thomson before any inquiries or investigations were complete. There was enough to form an opinion and express one on a matter of high public interest. There’s more than enough information on Sinodinos to do likewise, yet you stonewall. It seems you’ll only ‘play ball’ on your terms. Not much point debating you then if all you are is a Coalition cheerleader who goes ‘mum’ at the first sign of any hanky panky among their ranks. It’s like debating Joffa!

  23. GD says:

    Oh come on Ray, you stonewalled about Thomson and haven’t said anything about Williamson. So you obviously missed the newly expanded hour long Bolt Report, however it’s repeated at 4pm and is available online. I watched your taxpayer funded biased Insiders, why not give Bolta a go. I look forward to your comments.

  24. Ray Dixon says:

    Stop making things up about me please, GD. I did not stonewall about Thomson. I had plenty to say from early in the piece and it was mostly condemning of him. As for Williamson, he wasn’t a politician and there was no topic on him here, as I recall. That’s irrelevant, and you’re gutting out (and diverting again with your irrelevant referall to the Bolt show).

    Now …. what’s your excuse for refusing to comment on the Sinodinos matter again? What are you doing here if you’re not prepared to comment on matters like that? Oh, I get it, you’re only here to hang shit on what you call “leftists”.

    Good day, I’ve got better things to do (like catching up on my tax matters – yikes!).

  25. GD says:

    Yes, Ray.. zzzzzz

    I haven’t looked at the matter closely but this bloke has:

    FEDERAL Labor is asking way, way too much of the public with its high-minded moralistic posturing over Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos.

    Sinodinos, who stood aside as assistant treasurer on Wednesday to give the government clear air in the lead-up to the May Budget, has been called as a witness in the current NSW ICAC hearings into whether former NSW Labor heavyweights Eddie Obeid, Joe Tripodi and Tony Kelly misused their positions to favour Australian Water Holdings.

    No allegations of any criminal activity have been made against the NSW Senator, a former chief of staff to former prime minister John Howard, with an enviable reputation for honesty and integrity.

    Yet former AWU boss and Labor leader Bill Shorten, who is likely to be called before the royal commission headed by former High Court justice Dyson Heydon into alleged trade union corruption, has occupied almost all Question Time with his attempts to besmirch Sinodinos and by association, Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

    I’ll get back to you after you’ve done battle with the ATO.

  26. Ray Dixon says:

    I’ll put the SMH stuff about AWH and why Sinodinos has a lot to answer on the relevant thread for you, GD. When you wake up you might like to express a view on it. I guess though, that there’s more chance of finding survivors from the missing Malaysian plane than there is of that.

  27. GD says:

    There is a rush to label any disagreement with gay marriage or gay culture as out-and-out ‘bigotry’.

    Just as there is with open door immigration, only instead of bigotry it’s ‘racism’.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: